User talk:Morbidthoughts/Archive 4

In response to your message...
Would you say that I am notable (considering I have references from the BBC etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottcampb (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you, or at least your news site, seem notable based on your references. It's just better to have someone else independently and neutrally write about you or your website. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

help please
This user has been adding a number of birthdates without sources. I'm at work and only have a minute or two at a time where I can get online, so reverting these is a bit of a challenge. If you're online, could you help out? Dismas |(talk) 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Orsi Kocsis
Hi, was wonder if you would give me input on improving my first article. I'd like have the additional citations requirement (I've worked hard adding as many as I could find) removed. It would also be great to get a "B" rating on the Wikiproject Biography scale. If you can give me advise on these request, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now the article reads like a resume. Too much detail about her accomplishments. Use stronger secondary sources like newspapers. It is okay if you use Hungarian newspapers. Do not use youtube or message boards (like HQ Paradise) as a source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to get more constructive advice and disappointed that you've added the self-published portion. My goal was to have the notes removed and not added too! Can you explain and remove? Also is there a standard to illustrate the differences between a resume and biography? I've seen a number of other bio's of models that read similar.  Regarding youtube and message boards, I don't think I used any, can you explain? The HQ Paradise reference used was the relatively lengthy portion, the biography (not the message board), that was verified against Orsi's interviews with CKM, Penthouse & Playboy. I referenced it because the portion used (her biography) was the most concise compilation of a number of misc. and apparently well researched sources. How does this differ from many of the other "reliable" sources listed in the WikiProject Porn listing?  Also can you tell me where the picture size guidelines are? Thanks. Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the article should not use self-published websites like blogs (unless it is her blog), youtube, or message forums as sources. When I go to the HQ Paradise link, I see a logon to message forum. If you must, cite directly to those specific interviews you say HQ Paradise compiles from. Reliable sources listed by the project like AVN or XBIZ actually have staff writers and an editorial staff that oversees them. Right now references 2, 3, 5, 22-25 are unacceptable. Instead of writing about what videos are available on youtube, you can just mention the videos she appeared in. Like she was in a music video by so and so and reference it to a reliable source that mentions the appearance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As for images, see MOS:IMAGES. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bitoni
So do you think that Body Miracle would pull some sort of bait and switch when someone requested Bitoni because they don't actually have her as an employee or whatever the relationship is? Dismas |(talk) 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Body Miracle's practices, but their site or any escort site in general would probably qualify as a questionable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If I have time tonight, I'll see if I can find something better...  Dismas |(talk) 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article rankings
Hi, Morbidthoughts. If there's one thing that gripes my ass most about the bureaucracy-builders, it's that they are so incompetent... I've been trying off & on now for several days to figure out what a C-class article is, and I finally give up. The rule-makers win. Now, as more a law & order-type guy than I am, maybe you can point me to one of those well-hidden definitions? Not that it's very important to me, I'm just curious. I remember coming across a porn-specific description of all the article classes once, but I've lost it. Porn-specific and Wiki-general definitions (as they stand at the moment) would be nice, if you can point me there... If an editor of 3 1/2 years (though admittedly an old one who's not up on all the latest Wiki-jargon, and makes a point of not being up on it) has to give up in frustration over finding out something as basic as this, the rule-makers are obviously just entertaining themselves... And please feel free to come to me for more cantankerous grumbling anytime :) Dekkappai (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is the general assessment for biographies while this is the scale for porn. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Damned if I could find them on my own... Dekkappai (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sunny Leone
The correct proceedure is to add discuss tags not to delete references. If what I have put down is prohibited synthesis then discuss it, don't delete it. Note also, being an Admin is a privledge on Wikipedia, a privledge that is bestowed by fellow editors, and a priveledge that can be taken away.Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the correct procedure is in Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, particularly WP:GRAPEVINE, where removal of conjectural interpretation of a source is mandatory. Tabercil's knowledge and understanding of this policy is evidently much stronger than yours and your not assuming good faith about an administrator's actions is a bad path to go down on. If you wish to involve third parties to discuss your issues, please start an entry on the biographies of living people noticeboard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Sikh-history (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Stop this behaviour now Sikh-history (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello Morbidthoughts, as of recently many of the info related external links we have presented to misc. articles of Pornstars have been instantly deleted. We are aware these are nofollow and have no intention of promotion as this not something we need nor would benefit from. Simply put, we are Pornstar junkies and love connecting likeminded individuals via new useful information in regard to bios. We are and have always been huge fans of Wikipedia and its intentions and would only like to contribute otherwise unknown facts about individual actors/actress' in the Adult Entertainment Industry. I'm sure you are aware of our project online, please stop by to say hi or contact anytime for chat. Thank you -
 * Please read the guidelines on external links. I consider the addition of your website pornstarglobal.com to be advertising as you still stand to benefit from the increased traffic that wikipedia would deliver with all the referral codes on your site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment
I don't appreciate what you are insinuating here I think you should assume good faith. Am I not allowed to vote or express my opinion? Is it because I don't agree with you?

Just to set the record straight, it's user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz whom is wikihounding myself and a few other editors. I'd appreciate it if you didn't exacerbate the problem. I haven't contributed to articles as of late because he reverses all of my edits. Waiting on some evidence that he's a blocked user evading said block. Until then I am careful as he destroys any article I show interest in.

Swancookie (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While you go on about Mr. Wolfowitz, you still didn't answer my original question. Other editors are free to disregard your opinion on WP:PORNBIO if they feel that you are taking a position because another has taken the opposite position. Plenty of other editors have disagreed with me in that discussion, and you're the only one that I consider to possibly have ulterior motives based on your history. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no ulterior motives! I'm not a vengeful twit like a lot of the "no lifers" around here. I think User:Power.corrupts made his case quite well. I'm just another editor who disagrees with you. Case closed. Based on my history? Umm, do you mean the history of me being harassed? Give me a break!

Swancookie (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we got off on the wrong foot! Question? Do you have an issue with porn or something? Just curious? Swancookie (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not. It's just I feel that there are not that many notable porn stars out there with enough reliable sources to write biographies on. The ones I'm trying to eliminate more of are the ones who don't have sources to write about and probably never will have these sources. People are all too happy to substitute rumours, gossip, or their own analysis into these articles in the meantime simply because there is an article that exists. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Understandable. You know since the internet is ever changing I actually wish there was an expansion on reliable sources or at least a more detailed guide on what is acceptable here. Do you think in the case of a living person one's own website is a reliable source? Not baiting you, I'm honestly curious what you think.

Swancookie (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is technically not reliable, but the person's own website is usable for his wikipedia article. See WP:SELFPUB. Of course you might have issues trying to figure out whether the website, blog, myspace, twitter, etc are authentic and belong to that person. Lots of impersonators out there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I not write is information, see the (Revision history of Andie Valentino); other person write is information no reality.

Thank

--JEDIKNIGHT1970 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to write something more descriptive than "WIKI" in your edit summary so that we know what you are adding or changing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank
My English is bad, thank you correction in Andie Valentino.

Thank

--JEDIKNIGHT1970 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mimi Macpherson
With regard to Mimi Macpherson, have you even read the discussion on her talk page? Or do you just step in and block people because you disagree? Micheal Benarek suggested several reasons for the inclusion of the references, each of which I answered. Are you not able to contribute to the discussion as well? I'm am not merely deleting or blanking page content or templates from Wikipedia as you suggest, my reasons for my contribution are quite clearly set out on her talk page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvj2009 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the discussion on the talk page. No, I can not block people I disagree with although a neutral administrator will if you continue to disrupt this encyclopedia with your edits. I participated in the biographies of living people noticeboard discussion and so did several other users who you ignored and reverted. You are deleting content that has been verified by at least 5 citations to reliable sources. You have been edit warring over this issue for at least half a year and claiming things such as defamation and libel. I simply have to ask, which part of this video is untrue then? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from you, me and Micheal Bednarek, there were only 3 other participants in the discussion on the biographies of living people noticeboard, one of whom agreed that the inclusion of the line was humiliating. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment… Also, your 5 citations are surely subject to circular referencing! You are stooping to new lows by linking to pornographic material directly from Wikipedia. Dvj2009 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In this instance, wikipedia is not the primary vehicle for the spread of the claims. It is repeating what at least 5 reliable sources have mentioned on the matter. By your rationale, would you rid the Rob Lowe, R Kelly, or Paris Hilton articles of their video indiscretion? Just a reminder that wikipedia is not censored if you want to complain about the direct linking of pornographic material. It should be obvious that when discussing pornographic issues on the talk page,  people may actually link pornographic items *gasp*. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the #1 hit for a search on Mimi Macpherson, so it’s a pretty effective vehicle for the spreading of rumours. The first two citations you are so protective of don’t even mention a Michael Hellwig! The remaining three all refer to him as “then boyfriend Micheal Hellwig” – coincidentally the same phrasing as the article on here? Also, perhaps the neutral administrator you earlier suggested will block me for my ‘disruptive edits’ will take into account my willingness to be cooperative in every way with how things are done in here. On that note I am appreciative of the lessons on protocol afforded by both yourself and Michael Bednarek, even if at the expense of common decency and responsibility. Dvj2009 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested
If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your input on this topic: Template talk:Infobox adult female

Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 03:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My userpage
Thanks for reverting that. I can't get that guy to understand that we don't link everyone's last name just because their last name has an article. Dismas |(talk) 04:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Rocco Siffreddi real name source
Hmm - what sort of website is ? - as I can't read Spanish I can't evaluate it under our WP:RS guidelines. Exxolon (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a Spanish news site. On the left, you have your provincial news section, your national section, culture & arts and so on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Adam Andrzejewski
An article that you have been involved in editing, Adam Andrzejewski, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dismas |(talk) 17:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayme Langford on being 17
actually she was, in her 1st video on bangbus she was newly 17. when she was in college in maine for a single semester, she turned 18, and her porn vid was already circulating around campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.116.149 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very serious and controversial charge that has to be supported by reliable sources of which there are none. Just rumours and speculation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion notice
You've left me a note about Alex Devine being listed for proposed deletion. I think you might want to double-check who's getting the notifications! I did technically "create" the page back in 2006, but this was as a redirect to an entirely different person - I've nothing to do with the content there now. Shimgray | talk | 23:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Katherine Curtis needs Reliable sources??!
Where it talks about her working for the Naked News it has a link to her official Bio on the Naked News site.

The Section about her interviews includes links to some of the interviews on Youtube (Clearly not fake interviews, Youtube is sometimes a reliable source) and The Blind Ferret people posting on their official forums about this interview.

I did just notice that the Edge has removed the podcast where they interviewed Kat, Val, and April from their site(Damn).

The section about her collaboration with the Watchtower Podcast has links to the actual podcasts and video clips(Again on Youtube, and again clearly not fakes).

I still want to put back the Quote and reference to that article in "The Eye Opener" but the guy who deleted it hasn't replied on why it was removed. --Threkk (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Curtis article needs reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means sources beyond nakednews. Youtube is not an acceptable source unless a reliable source had uploaded the video (like CNN or ABC News). Message board posts are also not reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia's Reliable source Examples..."video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed"
 * it doesn't say anything about only videos posted by major news organizations. The clips I referenced are very clearly authentic. Saying she interviewed someone and having a video clearly showing that person interacting with her is proof. Claiming that she's posting sample pieces to Youtube and referencing those videos is pretty clear proof that she's posting videos to Youtube. Claiming she did a guest spot on a podcast and referencing the actual podcast is proof she really did the guest spot.


 * also from Reliable Source Examples "Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster. Some however, are edited by reliable organizations, and therefore may possibly be justified as exceptions."
 * The forums post is clearly from the subject of the interview because it's on his forums and in the post he's labeled as a Site Administrator. There's nothing remotely anonymous there.

--Threkk (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the Reliable Source Noticeboard about Youtube. For the purposes of notability, youtube would not be an acceptable source to prove the notability of Katherine Curtis as a subject as it is self-published. If you want to just prove that she interviewed specific people, then fine as long as the uploader is someone reliable or associated with naked news. However, is it important enough to write about if no other independent reliable source does? Same thing with the message board if the person is indeed Sohmer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just moved this to the Katherine Curtis Discussion Page. Because, I'm hoping to get other contributors involved. --Threkk (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank Skinner article
Hello Morbidthoughts,

I don't know if the Hank Skinner article will survive your request for deletion, but don't you think that Skinner is more notorious than many others in the category "People convicted of murder by Texas"?Adumoul (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I live in Texas and am aware of several of those other cases but never heard of Skinner. However, it might be because I'm in Texas where there has been over 1167 executions due to murder and numerous claims of inadequate/inappropriate representation by their attorneys that I don't see Skinner being any more special than another. I should withdraw the afd. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing the deletion proposal. You can read for yourself from Hank Skinner, here for instance: http://texasdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2009/04/message-from-hank-skinner-april-01-2009.html

As a Texan legal expert your contributions on this topic could be extremely valuable. Adumoul (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Dark
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 02:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Inadequate time for discussion of deletion
When you nominate something for deletion, perhaps any discussion of it  should be given more than about a week . I'm not going to fight it, but Zuzanna Drabinova is far more prevalent in porn than any typical Playboy Playmate -- she has been in pictorials steadily for more than five years, appeared in just about every significant porn mag (including Playboy's Newsstand Specials), been a subject of multiple sets on just about every major porn picture site, been a subject of literally multiple hundreds of sets and a good fifty to a hundred short videos. I'm not going to try to prove that, it's just blatantly true to anyone who makes an effort to verify it. I have no idea how much money she makes per shoot, but I'm willing to bet it's close to the maximum anyone not doing hardcore ever gets, and am also willing to bet that her sets are among the most downloaded on any site she is on. It would be trivially easy to fill several DVDs with her pictures and videos.

Hence, her popularity and notoriety is hardly trivial. From what I can see, you idiots are purging basic pages for a number of exceedingly well known and popular models simply because you use a stupid and narrow criteria which ignores widespread appearances and popularity. If a random playboy playmate deserves note, then so, too, does Zuzanna Drabinova and Adele Stevens (whose page also appears to have been stupidly and ignorantly deleted). A PM gets fame for a month or so. Both of the above have careers of longevity (>5 years and >10 years, respectively) and exceedingly widespread appearances which make them just as notable as any randomly selected PM. In short, your criteria blows.

OBloodyHell (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the guidelines on notability again before you decide to make another personal attack. I might actually take you seriously next time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you. NW ( Talk ) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PornstarGlobal.com
USER/WIKIPEDIA EDITOR: Morbidthoughts is the person who initiated this ban, but after recieving an email from an anonymous source we soon discovered this link: http://www.adultdvdtalk.com/reviews/search_reviews.dlt/reviewer=morbidthoughts/morbidthoughts.htm. This link is Morbidthought's own porn dvd review page (from another site) dating all the way back to 2003. In one of these many reviews he makes this quote "I never realised how difficult it was to write a review and it may have been made worse since my porn viewing gets dictated by my ADD." The link to this quote is here: http://www.adultdvdtalk.com/reviews/read_review.dlt/sku=5123/joey-silveras-service-animals-11.htm. Not only is he clearly stating that it is very hard for him to write a review, but he is also stating that his disabllitly (ADD) is clouding his overall decision making. He then continues to say "By this time I stayed away from his movies when he started his Service Animals line. I work with service animals in real life and wasn't that comfortable with the title and the implications of what that title means." which is proof that if he does not like something he will intentionally cease to recognize its value. We then found his Nickname on many other pornstar bios related sites including our biggest competitor. he is appearantly well known in the porn industry and is obviously engaging in bias and favorable activities according to Wikipedia rules & standards. His actions should monitored and his previous blacklisting's should be investigated as he is clearly a rouge editor with malicious intent and a lack of comprehension due to his dissabillity. It also appears that other Admins. (who shall remain nameless for now) are very close to Morbidthoughts and partake in his activities as well. At this point all we would like is our url removed from your blacklist, but not because we fear it .. just because we no longer want to have any involvement with your Company. Thank you - 97.113.37.141 (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nice and everything if you accuse me of having a conflict of interest but I am not the person inserting ADT links into wikipedia while you've been constantly spamming this system. I do love your conspiracy theory though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, the proof is posted. You are clearly bias, jealous, and too close to this to be able to make a valid neutral call. I'm afraid the issues you mentioned above have compromised your duties and I regret to say that our opinion is that you no longer hold the ability to perform in this position. We bring a handfull of Wikipedia pages to life that were previously linkless and you choose linkless which only hurts the Wikipedia project. Anyone can see what you are doing and it's a shame. Your actions have caused a good site to be blacklisted - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.39.208 (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging from this, your opinion doesn't matter. You sure are ranting quite a bit when you're "trying" to withdraw your site from wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate and discouraging that Wikipedia does not believe our opinion matters but we respect all opinions including yours. We would only like to be removed from the list as to not tarnish our name. Another off-topic reason is because the term 'Blacklist' just dosen't sit well with us .. it feels a bit racial. Is there an alternative list that carries the same theme but has a different label? No hard feelings - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.39.208 (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Just one quick comment since I happened to stumble upon this discussion). I don't think that there is an alternative name for "blacklisting". Anyways, I think that the term is not based in race. If it was, then you wouldn't have things like Greylisting (a blacklisting technique), since there isn't a grey people race. And people in the computer security business are usually classified as Black hat, Grey hat or White hat, with no relationship to their actual race. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts solicted...
Namaste,. I'm posting to let you know that I have listed you as an editor who had an unsuccessful RfA in the not-too-recent, not-too-distant past on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running for administratorship (or not), or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. If you might be interested, but would like some private confidential feedback from experienced observers, I would be happy to propose this via the new vetting service. Regards, Skomorokh  18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. I would run again if someone thought well enough of me to nominate me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! I've listed you here so that experienced nominators will be made aware. Regards, Skomorokh  18:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Alex Whitton article
what is your problem, i realy dont know who oyu are, all i am trying to do is make sure people know who i am in the local comunity
 * Wikipedia is not a webspace provider for you to promote yourself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum edit warring
Care to discuss the entry, rather than reverting? It meets all WP:BLP requirements. The specifics have been and are being discussed on the talk page.
 * I reverted you simply because you continued to edit war to impose your position despite the 3RR warning and it also led to your block. Futher you kept on edit warring on another user's talk page when he has the right to remove your warnings per WP:BLANKING. Part of BLP is strictly adhering to a neutral point of view which includes WP:UNDUE. Several editors have disputed that these assertions satisfies BLP, and I am following the discussion at the talk page to await for some sort of consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

re: edits to Pornographic actor
I understand why you think that it was original research, however most everything in that paragraph I'm sure could've easily been referenced rather than deleted. Which would've been a more ideal way to improve the article don't you agree? -- &oelig; &trade; 06:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the burden is on the person who readds the information to be able to verify it. If it was that easy, be my guest and readd it with the appropriate citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the burden wouldn't have to fall on the one re-adding it if the one removing it took on the burden in the first place right? That's what I'm saying, a more ideal way to improve the encyclopedia would be to add sources to information that can be easily sourced rather than removing it and placing the burden on someone else to find sources. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Metal Safari
I have been asked to make a Wikipedia page for informative purposes by a representitive of an up and coming band from Japan. However since this is my first article and I cannot seem to get the hang of Wiki coding my page repeatedly keeps getting deleted and I receive threats of banning for my shortcomings in this department which I find is more than somewhat unfair. If you could be so kind as to help me in the making of the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. (Scepticide (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Please read WP:MUSIC to get some ideas on whether an article about that band is appropriate for wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Because a 'helpme' was used here, I have also answered it in User talk:Scepticide  Chzz  ►  23:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Heather Harmon
You think Alexus Winston is notable but Heather Harmon is not? What about WP:ENT #2, "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following?" Or WP:ANYBIO #2? "an actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers?" There's quite a few additional criteria (in this case ANY, ENT, and PORNBIO) and only one must be met. In the case of Heather she could arguably meet 3 of them. "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.--WP:GNG Your opinions don't reflect guidelines. --Stillwaterising (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I explained my reasoning in both AfDs. I don't believe Harmon meets any of the additional criteria you have listed either because those notability assertions can not be verified by reliable sources. Why don't you list some of your Harmon sources at WP:RSN and see if they pan out? Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took your advice and put in a request on the noticeboard. -Stillwaterising (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayme Langford
her anal scene is listed on iafd: [] More Dirty Debutantes 351	4-Play Video	Anal	2006

I'd think that is a legitimate source.Raptorbox (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So? I am one of the editors of IAFD and it can not confirm whether she did anal with Ed Powers or whether it was a solo anal with toys. We had put the anal designation on her scene because the backcover advertised it but no review has verified it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No question about its existence, it's easily confirmed through google, I'll let you decide what to do about it. Raptorbox (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickr
Nice photos. Are you a professional photographer? - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lambert
As someone who voted to keep the article, thanks to Tanthalas39, I have the original article here. I'm going to keep working on it, but since the article cannot be made public yet, it will have to be done through the ELSandbox until the article is uncontroversial enough. I'm asking for the help of you and the other supporters to attempt the repair of this article. For discussion on the topic, just use the Elizabeth Lambert section of my talk. PÆonU (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Chesty Morgan
Hi, Morbidthoughts. You might be interested in the goings on over at Talk:Chesty Morgan‎. An editor claims I cannot share my BP work with WP. Your input would be appreciated. Dekkappai (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how Boobpedia licenses your contributions so that other people can use it. The precaution WP is taking is to avoid stealing your work. If Boobpedia does not take away your copyright when you publish on it, then you have the right to publish your work anywhere else you see fit. WP just needs to confirm that it is you at both sites. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Morbid. Well, I checked with the Jimbo of BP before putting it here, and he told me it was fine to share. Anyway, you know I have a hefty contempt for WP's self-made, ever-changing mob-rules, and the torch & pitchfork mop-wielders who enforce them. I'm here to write articles... for myself really. And the article has been written, and it's at BP. I'd be fine with it even if it were just saved on my own disc... I looked around quite a bit on the 'Net before starting that article, and found no real biographies. She seems to be something of a mystery. Yet I was able to put together an article that had quite a bit of very interesting biographical material, and sources. But if Wiki-machinery can't accept it, so be it. The kid in Africa will have to go to BP for info on Chesty :) Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Star-Flickr
Hello, Just wandered if you could add a photo off your great collection on flickr to these articles since i hope they are notable. thankyou for your help. Priya Rai, Kristina Rose, Tristan Kingsley, Mikayla Mendez, Crystal Knight, Monique...... Britannic1 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Simpson
I replaced refimprove and nofootnotes with onesource. Citations don't seem necessary until there is more than one reference. refimprove makes sense, but I think onesource is more to the point. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I didn't know that template was even available. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jennie Ketcham
Can you do me a favour? Can you take a look at this article and see if you can locate sources for the various "cite needed" bits? TIA... Tabercil (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Message From K.M.D1994
Guess What? A casting call has been issued for a VH1 reality dating show starring Frank Maresca (The Entertainer). The show is tentatively entitled "The Entertainer of Love".Didn't see that comin did you. I propose that you make it up to me and help me re-create the Frank Maresca page. What do you think? User:K.M.D1994 10:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks. What does Maresca have to do with the deletion of Kendall Davis? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cassia Riley
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cassia Riley. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Cassia Riley. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Harmony Rose
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Harmony Rose. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Harmony Rose. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Shy Love
Just wondering if you could offer your opinion about something. Another editor (anon IP) and I have having a bit of a dispute over the wording of the Shy Love article. Their latest edit reinserts the phrase "claims to have" where the article discusses her graduation from high school and eventual work as a CPA. Our reasoning for removing and adding the phrase is spelled out pretty well in the edit summaries. Would you mind having a look? Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 11:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the source is mainly an interview and the reliability (whether it actually verifies things the interviewees claim is doubtful) of that website is unknown, there should be doubt about any self-promotional assertions. If you think "claims to have" is not neutral enough, perhaps the phrase "according to Love" would be better. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tabercil has already re-worded it in that way. Suits me fine.  Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 17:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After spotting the debate here, natch.  Tabercil (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Camp Family Resource Center
FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 02:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my edit and your page warning.
I don't really understand where you're coming from here. If you check the diff, I'm not blanking any content. My edit is merely expanding the Ozone Magazine citation and moving the cited statement.(That she won't have vaginal sex on camera until she starts up her own website.) As someone who use to patrol recent changes for vandalism, I know IP edits lacking edit summaries can be sketch; but please, please, please read the diffs and page history more carefully before reverting and making accusations of vandalism. Thanks. -69.209.73.199 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I totally missed this and can't blame alcohol or drugs. Sorry about that! Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)